Live data from Hacker News

Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

cockpit-project.org

21–30 of 130 posts

Re: Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

#21
post #18
post #3

Would anyone be interested in a desktop application with similar functionality, accessing [multiple] hosts via SSH?

Actually no, the web interface is really slick. I would not install a desktop app for it even if there was one.

you do need to install cockpit on [all] your server[s], right?

i am trying to figure out if there is a business case for a desktop app. there is plenty of open source and commercial systems more or less similar to cockpit, and it's hard to compete with free

Re: Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. Open source or proprietary? Actually desktop or just electron? Are you going to maintain it? What use cases would it be intended for? Would the client software be available for macOS? Which GUI framework(s) would you be using?

proprietary, cross-platform desktop linux/mac/windows, javafx. use cases: server management and monitoring, log viewer, ssh terminals, parallel execution of commands, vnc, sftp, secure storage of credentials and keys. [0] https://github.com/andy-goryachev/AccessPanelPublic

This is very cool actually.. neat idea! And this just uses ssh protocol for all communication? Nothing needs to be installed server-side right?

Re: Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

#24
I set it up for my handrolled homelab server automation ( all Arch Linux servers ), back when I was doing everything with virsh.

It worked "ok". It required pulling in a bunch of dependencies I wouldn't have normally installed. I had it set up behind an HAproxy LB, with ssl terminated at the LB. When I was using it ~1 year ago, it was pretty buggy, and certain components would crash and I would have to restart the web page.

Overall it was a mediocre experience, but I suppose better than having to ssh into every server. The main pain point was that I still had to go in to every server, and install cockpit.

In the end, I ended up just moving on to Proxmox. But I suppose cockpit is nice if you don't want a centrally managed cluster, but still want a web interface.

Re: Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

#25
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, the web interface is really slick. I would not install a desktop app for it even if there was one.

you do need to install cockpit on [all] your server[s], right? i am trying to figure out if there is a business case for a desktop app. there is plenty of open source and commercial systems more or less similar to cockpit, and it's hard to compete with free

I don't like having to install cockpit on every instance/devices. That means I have to keep all of them up to date in addition of installing them and configuring the devices to make it operable.

I'd rather have a client-only app that connect through ssh and get its data from standard binaries installed on the server.

So, yes. I'd give that a try.

Re: Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

proprietary, cross-platform desktop linux/mac/windows, javafx. use cases: server management and monitoring, log viewer, ssh terminals, parallel execution of commands, vnc, sftp, secure storage of credentials and keys. [0] https://github.com/andy-goryachev/AccessPanelPublic

This is very cool actually.. neat idea! And this just uses ssh protocol for all communication? Nothing needs to be installed server-side right?

thank you!

it's still far, far away from being useful.

Re: Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you do need to install cockpit on [all] your server[s], right? i am trying to figure out if there is a business case for a desktop app. there is plenty of open source and commercial systems more or less similar to cockpit, and it's hard to compete with free

I don't like having to install cockpit on every instance/devices. That means I have to keep all of them up to date in addition of installing them and configuring the devices to make it operable. I'd rather have a client-only app that connect through ssh and get its data from standard binaries installed on the server. So, yes. I'd give that a try.

any specific feature that would motivate you to shell out fifty bucks? (half-joke)

Re: Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

#29
post #12

I installed on one of my ubuntu servers and allowed port 9090, but when I try accessing it from chrome it gives me a warning page "You cannot (IP) right now because the website sent scrambled credentials that Google Chrome cannot process." Is this because I run a NGINX server from that box?

sounds like a TLS cert error related to a 'snakeoil' self signed cert or something

Re: Cockpit – Integrated, glanceable, web-based interface for servers

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like having to install cockpit on every instance/devices. That means I have to keep all of them up to date in addition of installing them and configuring the devices to make it operable. I'd rather have a client-only app that connect through ssh and get its data from standard binaries installed on the server. So, yes. I'd give that a try.

any specific feature that would motivate you to shell out fifty bucks? (half-joke)

As a hobbyist that'd be hard to justify. At work I manage two standard LAMP servers only. So I am not really your audience.

I think I'd like some kind of alerts on some specific events (disk space, some logs, IDK), systemctl management and status/reporting, some instantaneous “update as I type” filtering/searching in logs, cron and/or systemctl timer management, space usage graphics, booting reports, etc. ... maybe these are just things I usually do and think a GUI would be nice to have if I had to do it for multiple servers. Not enough experience with that in a professional setting though so take it all with a grain of salt.

But as-is, I think I could justify asking for 50 bucks for the product if I needed it.

Post reply on HN